4.2 Article

Red blood cell preservation by droplet freezing with polyvinylpyrrolidone or sucrose-dextrose and by bulk freezing with glycerol

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 51, Issue 12, Pages 2703-2708

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03258.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 CL999999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) preservation is essential to transfusion medicine. Many blood group reference laboratories need a method to preserve rare blood samples for serologic testing at a later date. This study offers a comparison of three common cryoprotective agents and protocols used today: bulk preservation with glycerol and droplet freezing with sucrose-dextrose (S+D) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Human blood from 14 volunteers was collected and frozen at set intervals over 2 weeks with PVP, S+D, or glycerol. The frozen RBCs were later thawed and the percentage of surviving RBCs was determined. Detailed protocols and an instructional video are supplied. RESULTS: Over a 2-week period, RBCs preserved with glycerol and thawed with a widely used protocol showed a recovery of 41 +/- 16% (mean +/- standard deviation) while those thawed with a modified glycerol protocol showed a recovery of 76 +/- 8%. RBCs preserved by droplet freezing with S+D showed a recovery of 56 +/- 11% while those preserved by droplet freezing with PVP showed a recovery of 85 +/- 6%. Recovery values were similar with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid or heparin anticoagulants, differing freezing rates, and varying droplet volumes. CONCLUSION: Droplet freezing with PVP offered the greatest recovery. While bulk freezing with glycerol can also be effective, droplet freezing may be a more convenient method overall. It requires less effort to thaw, needs much less storage room, and allows blood group laboratories to be frugal with thawing rare samples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available